Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

LLM-Powered Preference Elicitation in Combinatorial Assignment

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.10308 v1 pith:BZ2JEAZU submitted 2025-02-14 cs.AI cs.GTcs.LG

LLM-Powered Preference Elicitation in Combinatorial Assignment

classification cs.AI cs.GTcs.LG
keywords llmselicitationpreferenceproxiesassignmentcombinatorialefficiencyframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the potential of large language models (LLMs) as proxies for humans to simplify preference elicitation (PE) in combinatorial assignment. While traditional PE methods rely on iterative queries to capture preferences, LLMs offer a one-shot alternative with reduced human effort. We propose a framework for LLM proxies that can work in tandem with SOTA ML-powered preference elicitation schemes. Our framework handles the novel challenges introduced by LLMs, such as response variability and increased computational costs. We experimentally evaluate the efficiency of LLM proxies against human queries in the well-studied course allocation domain, and we investigate the model capabilities required for success. We find that our approach improves allocative efficiency by up to 20%, and these results are robust across different LLMs and to differences in quality and accuracy of reporting.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Complexity Beyond Incentives: The Critical Role of Reporting Language

    econ.GN 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0

    In a five-treatment lab experiment, ranking multi-attribute programs causes frequent errors that grow with preference complexity; restricted reporting interfaces don't beat full rankings even when they match the prefe...

  2. Choose Your Agent: Tradeoffs in Adopting AI Advisors, Coaches, and Delegates in Multi-Party Negotiation

    cs.GT 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Users prefer an AI Advisor but gain most with a Delegate, because human editing filters out the AI's best proposals.